Is it true it just takes a majority of Senate to change the rules on cloture?

[madfloridian]

I was wondering about that. It appears they are leaving the 60 vote requirement for cloture in on purpose, if this is correct. We have a majority, so is it possible they could change that to get a more workable environment?

This is an editorial from the Benningon Banner in Vermont:

Have we had enough?

The near impossibility of gaining the 60 votes required to end debate under existing Senate filibuster rules was on full display during the health care bill debate, and all of its ugliness too. Not only were the majority Democrats forced to gut their reform initiatives to the point only the strongest of stomachs in the party could swallow it, but we witnessed the kind of sickening political payoffs and score settling these deadlocks spawn.

We saw Senator Joe Liberman of Connecticut, a former Democrat now an independent, fight both the public option plan and an expansion of Medicare to those 55 and older, even though he had favored similar changes in the past. Could it have anything to do with his defeat in a 2006 primary election by a liberal Democrat and his forced conversion to an independent in order to win another term? We won’t know unless he tells us, but we can guess.

..."At the end, the Senate Democrats staggered away with legislation that mandates health insurance for most Americans but provides no public option -- meaning that, as former Vermont Governor Howard Dean correctly stated, this will be a windfall for the private insurance companies and won’t do anything to control runaway insurance and medical costs."

..."Since these are Senate rules, and not in the Constitution, a majority of senators can eliminate or revise them. A 55-vote requirement for bills would seem more sane in this era of closely divided government, with perhaps a 60 vote requirement kept for appointments, such as to the Supreme Court."

So is it possible?

[provis99]

1. you only need 50 votes to change rules, but the vote can be filibustered.

so essentially you need 60 votes to change the filibuster, just like for any other bill.

[PSPS]

4. Not true

All that needs to happen is when a republican "objects" to the bill's vote (to formally begin the filibuster,) whoever is the president of the senate at the time can simply "reject" their objection. That rejection requires only a majority to sustain. End of story, end of the filibuster rule.

[Better Believe It]

5. If you use a parliamentary manuver called the "nuclear option" you can immediately stop a filibuster

And short of that, the Senate leader can force Senators to take the Senate floor if they wish to filibuster rather than sign a simple form declaring they are engaged in a filibuster.

[laughingliberal]

2. Yes, and I don't think it requires legislation, I believe they can vote on the rules at the start of

the Senate's session yearly. They aren't likely to do it but they could. Remember Frist threatening to do it?

[Better Believe It]

10. He just threatened to stop a Democratic filibuster via the nuclear option.

Crawling along the Senate floor in absolute fear, seven Democratic Senators agreed to join Republicans in a "deal" that stopped the use of any filibuster against Bush's Supreme Court appointments .... so long as Bush didn't nominate the Grand Dragon of the Alabama KKK or other terrorist to the Supreme Court.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. According to the republicans before 2006 that was true.

According to the Democrats since then, well it might be true (and was in the past when rules were changed) but it would be unfair and not right to change the rules like that, or even to threaten to change the rules when faced with lockstep intransigence. We have witnessed yet another round of completely inept use of power by our party leadership. That power is quite likely to slip away from them entirely in 2010, but that is no big deal, as they never used it effectively while they had it. Who would have thought that our leaders learned absolutely NOTHING from the lessons of the Clinton presidency?

[laughingliberal]

7. There is only one explanation for why they have not done it that makes since given that

Republicans have obstructed everything since we got the Senate back in '06. They don't want to do it. Eliminating the need for 60 votes would pull the covers on the fact that they do not want to pass any popular legislation. Think about it. If they had not needed the 60 votes, we'd have a progressive bill coming out of the Senate now, as progressive as the House, perhaps more so. And, after this, if they don't do it you will know. They do not want to enact a progressive agenda and the filibuster gives them cover for failing to work for the people. It's that simple.

[valerief]

6. Well, they managed to change the filibuster rules in the seventies. Probably not by magic, either. n

[orwell]

8. It takes...

67 votes to change the filibuster rule.

"Because that, too, would require a supermajority vote, according to another provision in the Senate Rules. Rule XXII by its terms provides that any motion to amend the Senate Rules requires the agreement of two thirds present and voting. If all 100 Senators are present, 67 votes would thus be needed."

http://www.yuricareport.com/Law%20&%20Legal/Senate%20Rules%20on%20Filibuster.html

[laughingliberal]

11. It goes on to say even that rule may be subject to change with a simple majority

Cause I know Frist threatened to end the existence of the filibuster and I know he did not have 67 Republicans in the Senate. Hell, they had to pass Bush' tax cuts under reconciliation cause there weren't 60 Republicans to stop a Democratic filibuster.

[HughMoran]

9. Some have said it takes 2/3 (67?) votes to change the rules

Sorry, I have no link - this is just my memory of a previous post on this topic.

[burning rain]

13. According to Senate Rule XXII, it takes 2/3, but that is not supported by the law.

See my post #12 below.

[burning rain]

12. Yes.

In 1957, then-Vice President, and President of the Senate, Richard Nixon authored an opinion stating that the Senate has a right to change its rules by a simple majority vote, and this opinion, buttressed by the Supreme Court case United States v Ballin (1892), is regarded as authoritative to this day.

[madfloridian]

14. Ok, I looked up that case, but I am dense when it comes to law.

I see a couple of paragraphs a little over half way down that you might be referring to. Could you help?

I would love so much to be sure on this, but I think this Senate really doesn't want to change things.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=144&invol=1

[burning rain]

15. I'm not a legal (b)eagle, but it appears to me these passages seal it:

"The constitution, in the same section, provides that 'each house may determine the rules of its proceedings.' It appears that in pursuance of this authority the house had, prior to that day, passed this as one of its rules: <144 U.S. 1, 5> 'Rule 15. ... (3) On the demand of any member, or at the suggestion of the speaker, the names of members sufficient to make a quorum in the hall of the house who do not vote shall be noted by the clerk and recorded in the journal, and reported to the speaker with the names of the members voting, and be counted and announced in determining the presence of a quorum to do business.' H. J. 230, Feb. 14, 1890."

Right of each House of Congress to make its rules recognized with no countenance given to the idea that any sort of supermajority might be required.

"It is no objection to the validity of a rule that a different one has been prescribed and in force for a length of time. The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal."

Right of each House to change its rules at will.

"The constitution provides that 'a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business."

218 in US House, 51 Senators are sufficient to do business in either House.

[madfloridian]

16. I did find this explanation from James Fallows

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/the_filibuster_and_family_full.php

I have not read it all yet, quite long.

He was correcting Axelrod on his comments yesterday and linked back to it.

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/12/david_axelrod_go_read_your_his.php